President George W. Bush should be re-elected
The campaign has been a long an arduous one for both candidates. Much has been said on a variety of issues but when all is said and done the elephant in the room remains the events of September 11, 2001. It happened on George Bush’s watch and that is something, which is seared in his memory. If nothing else, guarding the country against such a reoccurrence is what is driving the results of this election and on that score President Bush has a clear and unassailable approach to terrorism. A pundit whose name I cannot recall at this moment said it best last week, “war is best fought as an away game”. Terrorism is not a crime and is not a nuisance. It is a clear-cut act of war and those who perpetrate it or espouse it as a philosophy or harbor it as a state must be forced to confront their responsibility. President Bush has demonstrated a resolve to see that strategy through.
President Bush is right on the major foreign policy issues facing the nation. The Clinton administration had pursued a bilateral approach with North Korea that resulted in a worsening of the situation. The North has acquired nuclear weapons and now must be dealt with by forcing the nations who have the primary interests in the region to confront the issue.
Afghanistan and Iraq were both extraordinary military successes. The Soviets had taken nearly ten years and were unable to defeat the Mujahideen yet the Unites States military forces were able to do it in months. The new military envisioned by Rumsfeld has been an overwhelming success.
There is much disagreement about the Iraqi invasion but this can be said. If there was a mistake regarding the status of the regimes possession of weapons of mass destruction then it was not a case of the administration telling lies but of the entire US governmental structure believing the same thing from the information provided. The voices of restraint were very few. Given the post 911 circumstances and the long history of Hussein’s regime ignoring ultimatums action was necessary. In the end the fundamental question is this. Would Iraq be better off if we had left Hussein in power? Now that it is done there is no question that we must be committed to bringing freedom and stability to Iraq.
In the Middle East, the Bush administration has also made a major departure from Clinton policy. While in office President Clinton allowed Yasir Arafat to be a major figure at the White House, visiting many times allegedly in support of peace. Yet despite a Herculean effort by Clinton to get a deal done as part of his presidential legacy, Arafat could not bring himself to lead his people. President Bush has made it plain that a Palestinian state is a goal of the United States and is the first president to make such a commitment. Clearly that can only come about when Palestinian leadership is prepared to bargain in good faith and adopts a willingness to denounce terrorism as an acceptable method of resistance.
On the domestic side of the ledger, President Bush has had more success in four years than Senator Kerry has had in his entire senate career. Whether you agree with a drug benefit, or No Child left behind or tax cuts or stem cell research, the fact of the matter is that President Bush has marshaled legislation through the congress and gotten things passed. This is clearly testament to his executive experience as a result of 6 years as a Texas governor and four years in the White House. Senator Kerry’s only managerial experience is as a prosecutor in a district attorneys office in Massachusetts.
I am sure that Senator Kerry is a fine man and would be popular and welcomed in the capitals of Europe and at the UN. The nation however does not need a diplomat in these dangerous times. We need a leader who recognizes the threat and has the fortitude to see the crisis through.
